When the "vocal minority" begins to actually hurt us consumers.

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
You know, if they had kept the check in and the DRM stuff, my fucking nintendo 64 would function better than the E3 announce version of the xbox one.

All my n64 needs is electricity and a television, both of which are FAR more accessible than internet. I've got a good connection, but I recognize that that's because I'm just lucky like that. I know that internet coverage still sucks for a LOT of people, and those people won't be able to use the xbox one.

"But there's the 360"

Yeah, exactly. And how stupid is it that microsoft literally told people to not buy their console if they want to play offline? I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a good business strategy to me. You know, encouraging people not to buy your new console. That's like if I opened a donut stand and telling people "Well if you want good donuts go to that shop over there! But you won't be hip". I'd be lucky if one in a million people bought that line and bought donuts from me.

And don't pull the steam comparison crap on me either. I don't use steam. I tried it once to try the half life 2 demo, but it was slow and bullshit. I don't care how much they've improved. I've got freeware. No, not free to play games with tons of microtransaction, I'm talking one hundred percent free games where the artist in question just sticks a donate button on their site and makes that donation completely optional. Is the xbox one going to have free games? No. Sad, because free games is the only reason I could see to put up with the xbox one's bullshit. Too bad they used that strategy on the 360 I already have!
 

TallanKhan

New member
Aug 13, 2009
790
0
0
Sargonas42 said:
RedEyesBlackGamer said:
The Xbox One wanted an all-online present and declared war on the traditional sense of ownership of console games. It deserved what it got.
But Steam has similarish online requirements, and long ago destroyed the concept of physical media on the PC platform. Why should consoles ignore the same future progress that came to PC years ago?
I am afraid I must disagree that this is progress of any discription. Its is a rather unpleasant business practice that developers and publishers have desired to enact for a great number of years and are only just discovering the capability to make it a reality. The sole intent is to remove ownership and restrict choice in the marketplace and lets not forget any game that requires a constant internet connection or regular check in suddenly has a very real shelf life. At best it's the lifespan of the company that provides the checking service.

It may be true that even now we do not "own" games in the traditional sense but those who think there is not a fundamental difference between posession of a disc and a digital download if fooling themselves. "Possession is 9/10ths of the law" isn't just a memorable quote, its true. While yes is true both arrangments are in fact the granting of a licence, if someone has a working console and a game then it might as well be that they own that game. A publisher could cut support for an always online title tomorrow and make the whole game unplayable with a vague justification about it no longer being profitable to support, effectivley killing the game, and there is nothing you could do about it. However, when it comes to your standard retail game, for all intents and purposes it is yours for as long as you have a console to play it on, as no court would grant permission, and no company could afford to try to reposess every hard copy of a game disc in circulation.

From time to time I still like to wheel out the old SNES, fire it up and play donkey kong country or mario all stars. Do you think youl still have free access to all the games you are busy downloading from Steam today in 20 years time? I'm doubtful.
 

gibboss28

New member
Feb 2, 2008
1,715
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
gibboss28 said:
...well everyone else has already told you why you're wrong so I'll just say this.

Don't claim to be speaking for consumers, you clearly weren't when writing that crap out.
I doubt the OP will even read this, considering he hasn't even logged onto the Escapist since a few hours after posting this.
(check the user profile, Last Active: 11 Sep 2013 6:42 pm)

Looks like it was just a big ol' Parthian Shot at the forums.
Yeah...guess so, figured I'd just say my bit
 

glider4

New member
Mar 27, 2012
38
0
0
OK mister look. The Xbox one WAS NOT full of revolutionary new features. Just restrictions, the restrictions are now gone. There is no advantage to Microsoft's DRM for the consumer. Microsoft could have kept in the family sharing but didn't. Don't blame the consumer for not wanting to be screwed
 

Pandabearparade

New member
Mar 23, 2011
962
0
0
It wasn't a "vocal minority." Pre-order numbers are what Microsoft cares about, and they strongly favored the PS4.
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
Gethsemani said:
1. Steam is not a necessary application to run a gaming PC of any kind. It is an opt-in digital content delivery system that you can choose to use to play games.
We were discussing how Steam's restrictions work in comparison to the Xbox One, not the entire PC hardware category as a platform.


Gethsemani said:
Whereas the Xbox One is basically giving about half their potential customer base the finger for not living up to its' high demands for entry.

So when a company gives you choice to, as a consumer, purchase a system which requires an Internet connection to function properly, you perceive that proposition as them giving you the finger?

I hope you realize how absolutely, utterly insane that notion is. The suitable reaction to someone offering to purchase something that doesn't tailor to your needs is shrugging and just finding another product, not reacting with sheer hatred and malplaced rejection complexes.


It's a bloody company. They aren't in anyway required to make a product which suits your situation - they can dictate entirely how their system can function or not and it's not by any definition "anti-consumer" for a company to practice the right to design their own hardware and their own services the way they see it fit. You always have the choice whether to buy it or not.


Gethsemani said:
Microsofts idea of "game sharing" seems like a bad joke. They are offering you to give a demo to some of our friends while the game is locked to your account forever as opposed to Sony giving people the classical, well-tried and liked option of simply lending someone else the disc and letting them play.
[/quote]

Firstly, do your homework. Family Sharing was never at any point going to have any time-limit or demo-like limitations. Those rumors were debunked a long time ago. Also, the games wouldn't be "locked" to your account as you'd be able to give games with the original Xbox One (physical and digital) and even trade in used games if you wish.

Secondly, if you prefer the old way of doing things; á la hording dusty discs and occasionally handing them over to neighbors with the hope that you'll get it back in not too many months without too many scratches - good for you.

But I couldn't give less of a flying fuck about hard copies and would prefer a system that allows me to give away games digitally, to anyone on the other side of the earth over an fast internet connection. Something that the Xbox One would allow me to do, and the PS4 wouldn't.

So why not just leave the Xbox One to those who prefer digital sharing and just settle for Sony or a fucking WiiU or whatever you want instead. Why couldn't people like yourself just let Xbox One remain a digital option for those interested instead of collectively mobilizing a shitstorm and rant over perceived anti-consumerism.
 

DocHarley

New member
Sep 16, 2013
22
0
0
Maybe it's because I'm caveman (36 years old), but anything which arbitrarily requires me to have an Internet connection for single player Fun-O-Tainment can stroke off. I buy the game, I expect to be able to play it, regardless of my ISP's decision to be up and running at that time.
 

GladiatorUA

New member
Jun 1, 2013
88
0
0
TomWiley said:
Gethsemani said:
Whereas the Xbox One is basically giving about half their potential customer base the finger for not living up to its' high demands for entry.

So when a company gives you choice to, as a consumer, purchase a system which requires an Internet connection to function properly, you perceive that proposition as them giving you the finger?
FTFY.
I hope you realize how absolutely, utterly insane that notion is. The suitable reaction to someone offering to purchase something that doesn't tailor to your needs is shrugging and just finding another product, not reacting with sheer hatred and malplaced rejection complexes.
The sane reaction ranges from ignoring to all manner of "fuck you" depending on emotional investment. And it wasn't that "fuck you" that made Xbox 180. Press, E3 loss and massive difference in preorder numbers did that.

It's a bloody company. They aren't in anyway required to make a product which suits your situation - they can dictate entirely how their system can function or not and it's not by any definition "anti-consumer" for a company to practice the right to design their own hardware and their own services the way they see it fit. You always have the choice whether to buy it or not.
And I can respond to their decisions in any legal way I see fit.

Gethsemani said:
Microsofts idea of "game sharing" seems like a bad joke. They are offering you to give a demo to some of our friends while the game is locked to your account forever as opposed to Sony giving people the classical, well-tried and liked option of simply lending someone else the disc and letting them play.

Firstly, do your homework. Family Sharing was never at any point going to have any time-limit or demo-like limitations. Those rumors were debunked a long time ago. Also, the games wouldn't be "locked" to your account as you'd be able to give games with the original Xbox One (physical and digital) and even trade in used games if you wish.
There were no clear rules and with mess MS made with different legit sources saying different thing, there is no way to be sure. And if something looks to good to be true it most likely is.
Trading in was through retailers authorized by publishers which opens the whole different can of worms.
Secondly, if you prefer the old way of doing things; á la hording dusty discs and occasionally handing them over to neighbors with the hope that you'll get it back in not too many months without too many scratches - good for you.
Oh, I prefer digital. I would be happy with 100% digital.

But I couldn't give less of a flying fuck about hard copies and would prefer a system that allows me to give away games digitally, to anyone on the other side of the earth over an fast internet connection. Something that the Xbox One would allow me to do, and the PS4 wouldn't.
Sure, but there were no details about how it would work. And it's not like it's some sort of hardware solution. It can be implemented at any time. And if MS did it properly, there wouldn't be an outrage. Give users a choice. DRM with more features or no DRM without features. Easy. No outrage.

So why not just leave the Xbox One to those who prefer digital sharing and just settle for Sony or a fucking WiiU or whatever you want instead. Why couldn't people like yourself just let Xbox One remain a digital option for those interested instead of collectively mobilizing a shitstorm and rant over perceived anti-consumerism.
Because MS tends to screw over the rest of the community with limited time exclusivity shit. It doesn't help people using Xbox, just make all the others wait.

For a lot of people the trade off wasn't worth it and you don't seem to care about them. So why should they care about you?
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Sargonas42 said:
Three months ago Microsoft tried to revolutionize the concept of digital distribution and content ownership by allowing unprecedented capabilities to share your digital downloads with family and friends.

...

Thoughts?
Well, first thought -- Microsoft didn't set out to do what you say. Or, at least, they didn't TELL ANYONE. There are a lot of claims that have been made on Microsoft's behalf about what they could have done with this functionality, but the fact is that Microsoft was not very good at getting the right word out there.

For instance, if they were planning on creating a digital distribution platform that would feature incredible sales like Steam, that would have been the first damn thing they said. And then they'd have repeated a million times. And, what's more, they'd have tried exactly that on the current gen to prove they wanted to give it a go.

They didn't. This wasn't about improving things for the consumer. It was about improving things for publishers and Microsoft. Could it improve things for the consumer? Sure! If the company using the tool wants to, that is. Aaaaand Microsoft simply didn't do a good enough job of showing that kind of intent.
 

wetnap

New member
Sep 1, 2011
107
0
0
Yea I don't know why some gamers were so quick to lock themselves into the current gamestop 60 dollars/rip off pawn shop cycle nonsense.

Hysteria, gotta love it.
 

FireAza

New member
Aug 16, 2011
584
0
0
I'd hate to sound like a jerk, OP, but you're wrong on so many levels. It wasn't a "vocal minority" who complained about the Xbone's online requirements, practically everyone thought this was a terrible idea, based on what was the general consensus on forums and comments. The only positive words I heard came from the "restore the original functionality" petitions that came after MS announced they were removing the functionality, and even then, most of the people were trolls.

Also, people weren't complaining about the family sharing feature (that was one of the few things people praised), they were complaining about the required internet connection and the removal of used games. Microsoft can try and justify the need for these requirements all they want, but in reality, they could get family sharing working without the online requirement and no used games if they really wanted to (for example, requiring each of the Xboxes to do a one-time online check in to complete the transfer and requiring a second one-time online check in to transfer back).

The reason why Valve's announcement was well-received isn't due to some bias among the consumer like you see to believe, but because Valve have spent years generating good will among the consumer. Yes, Steam is technically DRM, but because it's non-invasive (you can play offline, you're not booted out of a game if your internet connection goes down etc) and has lots of benefits for the consumer (cheap sales, friends lists, automatic game updates, free DLC etc) most people see the software in a positive light. It is NOT the same thing as what Microsoft was proposing.

Basically, Microsoft tried to wrestle more control over the consumer with their new console and thought they would easily get away with it because the 360 was such a success this generation. The consumer clearly didn't like where this was going and voted with their wallets, causing Microsoft to have to backpedal. Yes, there were a few features that Xbox One had that could be considered "progress" but they're outweighed by all the other anti-consumer features of the consoles.
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
GladiatorUA said:
And I can respond to their decisions in any legal way I see fit.
And I never said that protesting against these decisions by flooding the Internet with tenuous and angry textual diarrhea should be illegal. Only that it's stupid.

(Should note that I don't consider you a member of that category, but a lot of people undeniably are)

GladiatorUA said:
There were no clear rules and with mess MS made with different legit sources saying different thing, there is no way to be sure. And if something looks to good to be true it most likely is.

Firstly, "too good to be true" is no real reason to even speculate, let alone making assumptions on how this upcoming, yet to be released system would work.

Microsoft said you'd be able to share the full game digitally with friends that's been on your friendslist for more than 30 days. All the confusion regarding family sharing started when this anonymous supposed "Microsoft employee" leaked that the system would only allow you to share 40 minutes of the game.

This, as so many other Xbox One rumors, were completely false and even outright denied by Microsoft. The anonymous comment was just another anonymous internet comment, but every single tech blog and game website jumped on it nonetheless.

You are right in that we don't know exactly how this would have materialized, all we know is that:

A - it would be the full game
B - it could be shared with up to 10 people
C - it was nothing like the family sharing we have today (of obvious reasons)

Perhaps it was a gold exclusivity, and perhaps it would work so that two players in the same family can't play the same game concurrently.

But even if we assume the worst, it would still be objectively less restrictive than that of virtually every single online distribution system we have today, from Steam to that of the PS4. In that these services had no digital sharing whatsoever. Now add the ability to access your games on another console and give entire games digitally as well, and I think my argument about Xbox One's digital value proposition stands.

GladiatorUA said:
Oh, I prefer digital. I would be happy with 100% digital.
Then you should be extremely unhappy to know that thanks to the unwitting opinions of the web, we'll see another console generation where an undated medium enables retail stores to parasite game developers and amp up game prices, and where every single AAA-title is riddled with needless multiplayer gimmicks and DLC, tacked on to stop pre-pubertal teenagers to trade in their games at the closest Gamestop.

GladiatorUA said:
Because MS tends to screw over the rest of the community with limited time exclusivity shit. It doesn't help people using Xbox, just make all the others wait.
Sony has a long history of doing exactly the same thing, even more aggressively so the same argument could be applied on the PS4. You can't say that the PS4 shouldn't exist because Sony would be pushing for exclusivities to lock out Xbox and PC players. Then why would the same argument applied for the PS4's favor be any more reasonable?


GladiatorUA said:
For a lot of people the trade off wasn't worth it and you don't seem to care about them. So why should they care about you?
Because they'd have the option to buy a PS4 for the good-old offline way of doing things. But I wouldn't have my cloud powered Xbox One that I was promised as E3.

Is it really that hard to get?